DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 11/12/2020
CC/164/2020
Unnikrishnan T.N - Complainant
Chinchu Nivas Parambu Road,
Pudussery Post, Palakkad.
(By Adv. M.J.Vince)
Vs
S.A.Hall,
West Yakkara,Palakkad- 678 001. - Opposite Party
Represented by its Manager
(By Adv.Anoop Chempath)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
1. The complainant booked the opposite party hall on 12/02/2020 for the wedding reception of his daughter which was proposed to be held on 18/05/2020 for a total amount of Rs.75,800/-. He paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- on the same day for which the opposite party issued receipt. Due to Covid 19 pandemic, complete lock down was declared by March 2020 and the wedding function had to be cancelled which was duly informed to the opposite party. Subsequently the wedding function was conducted at the complainant's residence with limited attendees. As the cancellation of wedding function was due to incidents beyond the complainant’s control, he asked for refund of the advance amount.
The complainant contacted the opposite party and initially he was willing to return the amount, but later on he rejected the complainant’s request. The opposite party is not supposed to levy charges for the services not rendered and the process of levying charges for a cancelled function is an Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant filed a police complaint and the opposite party agreed to settle the matter. But they did not do anything. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant together with interest @ 12% from the date of remitting and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and the entire cost of the proceedings.
2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The opposite party admits that the complainant booked the hall on 12/02/2020 and paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. The said amount was received for booking only which means to block the said date for the complainant for the specified purpose and not for providing any service. At the time of booking, it was made very clear to the complainant that the said advance amount is non refundable in the event of cancellation. The same is the trade practice prevalent in the said business because when booking is made, the opposite party will not be able to give the hall to any other person on that date.
It is true that there was a lock down and it is not because of the fault of the opposite party. The opposite party is suffering heavy loss of business due to the lock down. In fact the hall was closed as per Govt. mandate and no function has been performed there. The complainant ought to have conducted the wedding in the opposite party’s hall with limited attendees and following the covid norms as directed by the Govt. On the booked date, there was no absolute restrictions to perform wedding, but restriction was only with regard to the number of attendees. The wedding which was performed at the residence of the complainant could have very well been performed in the Hall. The complainant never contacted the opposite party before filing of this complaint.
Covid lock down was an “Act of God” event and it was beyond the control of both parties. In such a circumstance, both parties are to absorb mutual losses caused due to that event. Without admitting liability, the opposite party had offered to pay Rs.5000/- even though they are suffering heavy loss in business. The complaint is filed only to harass the opposite party and it has to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit and Exts A1 and A2 are marked in evidence. When it was posted for opposite party’s evidence, there was no representation from their part and they did not file proof affidavit. So their evidence was closed. Complainant filed notes of arguments. Thereafter the opposite party filed chief affidavit without filing a petition to re-open their evidence along with notes of arguments. Then an IA was filed to re-open evidence and to take proof affidavit on file. It was allowed and chief affidavit was taken on file. No documents were marked from their side.
5. The points arising for consideration are.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade practice on the part of the opposite party ?
2. Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
3. Reliefs as cost and compensation.
Point 1
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant booked the opposite party hall for wedding reception of his daughter to be conducted on 18/05/2020. On the date of booking i.e. on 12/02/2020, he paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. Ext A2 receipt issued by the opposite party confirms the payment.
7. As per the complaint, due to Covid 19 pandemic followed by complete lock down, the wedding function was cancelled and the matter was duly informed to the opposite party. As the cancellation of wedding function was due to the incidents beyond his control, the complainant approached the opposite party for refund of the advance amount.
8. Opposite party also contended that the wedding of the complainant’s daughter could not be performed at the hall not because of their fault. In fact the hall was closed as per the Govt. mandate and no function was performed there where the attendees were more in number. On the booked date , there was no absolute restrictions to perform wedding with limited number of participants. The wedding which was performed at the residence of the complainant could have very well been performed in the hall. Further they contended that the complainant filed this complaint without contacting them.
9. We observe that the out break of Covid-19 pandemic during March 2020 and the subsequent lock down and the Covid restrictions in performing public functions involving gatherings are known to all. In that situation, it was impossible for the complainant to perform the wedding reception at the Hall on the booked date of 18/05/2020 as contended by the complainant. Due to the restrictions, wedding halls were closed and the functions were totally banned. Once the relaxation came, the functions were allowed to be performed with limited number of people.
10. Opposite party’s manager himself admits on 5th para of version that on the date of filing version i.e. on 22nd February 2021 that the wedding hall was closed as per the Govt. mandate till last month and no function was performed there.
The contention of the opposite party that because of the pandemic, their business is affected and the incident happened not because of their fault and so both parties are to absorb mutual losses is not tenable. The cancellation made by the complainant did not affect the opposite party because in that situation it was not possible for the opposite party to give the hall to anyone else on that day.
11. We find no merit in the contention put forward by the opposite party that the advance amount is received for booking only which means to block the said date for the specified purpose and not for providing any service. The advance amount is received as part payment for providing the service and they have not rendered any service due to the particular situation and because of the restrictions by the Government public health measures.
12. The opposite party cannot claim any amount for the services not rendered. Non refunding of the advance amount is an Unfair Trade Practice on their part. Further, imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which put such consumer to disadvantage is an Unfair Contract and it is a violation of consumer right.
Points 2 & 3
The complainant is entitled to get the refund of the advance amount as the opposite party has not provided any service to the complainant. So the opposite party is bound to refund the advance amount paid by the complainant together with interest from the date of remitting.
Hence the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite party to refund Rs.10,000/- together with interest at 9% from 12/02/2020 till realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the Unfair Trade Practice on their part and Rs.2500/- as cost.
This Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of June 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
Witness for Complainant- Nil
Witness for Opposite party - Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Lawyer notice copy with postal receipt and acknowledgment.
Ext.A2 - Receipt issued by opposite party to the complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties-Nil
Cost: 2500/-
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
Fair copy on : 24/06/2022
Despatched on:
